I'm trying to design an RPG game (video game not table top) but I'm finding inspiration from the table top mechanics particularly on the skill checks. I'm not too knowledgeable on the subject beyond surface level know how from video games that I've played using DnD mechanics, so pardon my ignorance in advance.

If I wanna cook up Skill Check system similar to Pathfinder or DnD, is it a good idea to give a ton of specific skills into a skill sheet? Or perhaps it's better to just lump them all into one big abstract category?

For example in Pathfinder, Perform comprises of several different ways that are technically different from each other like Music, Arts, Drama, etc. DnD also apparently has similar Charisma based checks for Performance.

IRL they're all vastly different fields of expertise, but in tabletops they're all lumped together in one stat. Maybe there's a specialization of sorts, but given their common stat / skill check, it could possibly imply that me being a master pianist but has two left feet can Perform admirably in a Dance session simply by passing a Charisma / Performance check.

Same can be said with other stats like Diplomacy (seduction vs intimidation vs persuasion all in one), Crafting (weaponsmithing vs armors vs jewelry) or even Riding (ride a noble steed vs ride a wild beast).

This brings me to a question. Is there a reason for these games' abstraction and grouping of different fields? I am considering having dedicated skill checks for each Skill that would be present in my hypothetical game e.g. dedicated Music, Dancing, Painting skills in hopes of more accurately portraying a character's capabilities. That said, I am running into a potential problem that I am almost close to 80 Skills and I'm just halfway finished. As I do this, I am probably realizing the answer to my prior question about abstraction, but then comes a dilemma.

Is it better to make abstracted concepts as skills for the sake of convenience? Or perhaps making 150+ Skills to portray one character is the way to go? I'm thinking the first one is important for tabletop because you all have to write things down on paper and things are kept reasonable for everyone involved, particularly the DM. But since I'm making a (still hypothetical) video game does the same need still apply? They're all conveniently digitized so calculations are still fast and accurate.

Would a player tolerate tweaking 150+ Skills to make the character they want? And that's just the Skills. Like DnD / Pathfinder, I'll also need to cook up Character backgrounds, Traits, Combat and Non-Combat abilities / spells and more, but they almost all interact with Skills so I had to at least make that part right on a foundational level.

I apologize for my walls of text for such a rather abstract discussion. I just thought I could reach out to some other folks for advice in solving this predicament.

Hey there, I’m a comic creator in pre production stages and would like to build a game to accompany the adventure comics. I would appreciate your feedback/suggestions on where the best place to scout for a game developer would be?

Thanks again Appreciate your time/effort.

Hello everyone, I got accepted into Game design (Quite excited) while doing my first year in International business, we just started the last block on IB and I was wondering if there’d be any use in finishing business. Otherwise I’d have 4 months with out doing anything.

Also any tips for a soon game design student? How is the career from your experience? What did you not expect?

For example, light fixtures that by all accounts shouldn’t work because the devs forgot to design an outlet or they’re poorly placed across the ceilings.

Inaccurate architecture that wouldn’t work irl.

Shotty plumbing work that by all accounts shouldn’t exist.

I've been toying with this idea for a Valentine's Day collection and theming it around a mixtape. having Side A have 3 Solo games and Side B having 3 CO-OP Games.

I think it would be fun to have Side A be more personal and explorative with their games being more linked to build a simple narrative underneath as you select from the list of games and put them in a cassette player like selection screen . Then Side B being more co-op maybe having a hub in the form of a co op simple puzzle platformer where the couple has to work together to unlock the portals to each game.

the biggest problem could be quality and making sure each game is fun & fits the style of each side but I think setting up a basis for controls and going with a game jam kind of mentality for each game in the collection and focus on mechanics could work.

Looking for any feedback on this base concept.

What book would teach me "all" the main subjects and what would be the best ones to dig specific subjects?

A theory example: gameplay loops and player archetypes.

Maybe the ones you'd study at college, or what you'd read if you wanted to "replace" college. I don't know XD

Thanks!

For some more indepth looks at what this is and how it came to be, even if they're mildly outdated, check the link below.

Clicky Here

====

To give a broad overview, I ended up watching Ken's GDC Talk on his Narrative Legos idea some time ago, and obviously, it spoke to me. Emergent Narrative as a concept is something I was already interested in, and Ken's idea seemed like a clear pathway to it.

Particularly because, when we look at the broader scope of games that have tackled that concept, a lot of them actually have a lot in common. Idk if Ken knows it now, but from my perspective his Narrative Legos isn't all that far off from what the Nemesis system is doing, and both aren't that far off from what something totally systemic, like Dwarf Fortress or Rimworld, is doing.

But the thing is, while the ideas of all these games speak to me, I'm designing for tabletop. I don't have the benefit of a computer simulation, and also have to contend with a number of issues with tabletop RPGs in general, not the least of which is the practicality of running systems like these. (Never mind the instantaneous prejudice that comes out as soon as I mention video game design)

How I squared that problem is whats detailed in the linked posts, and you'll also find some PDFs in there of some formalized rules, as well as a rudimentary play example to illustrate some things.

=== To TL;DR the whole thing, I collapsed the Narrative Legos idea into something that delivers a practical Living World system to tabletop; just needs a Calendar.

To try and go through the current state of it, though, much of the system is still rooted in how Levine originally presented his idea. "Stars", which I currently call Keeper Characters, or KC's for short, collectively act as both a combined personality for generic NPCs and as a sort of logic for how Cities behave as a group and interact with the Players.

I expanded this though, dubbing that collective purpose "Culture", and upped it to two tiers where entire Regions have their own Culture made up out of the commonalities between all the Cities and individiual KCs (eg, KC Adventurers, evil doers, etc) within it.

To drive KC behavior, we still have the Passions, but also a second level in "Motivations". Motivations are used to build up dynamic Passions as the game progresses, but also serve as the first line of KC behavior.

For Motivations specifically, I actually inadvertently reinvented the Personality system that the Pendragon TTRPGs use, funnily enough by working backwards from what Bannerlord and Warband did in a much less comprehensive way. (And in fact I'm convinced Taleworlds got it from Pendragon originally, or they reinvented it like I did)

By doing that though, it also solves a couple other issues, namely Reactivity, which is a big big big thing about these kinds of systems, as well as squaring how social mechanics work on tabletop when we're assuming people want their improv to matter and not be wasted. And theough these, we also fulfill the Macro bar, with disposition towards players (or each other) being handled through Motivations.

Player's don't have prescribed personalities, but Reputations that they accumulate through their actions. These Reputations then pull double duty as Personality Traits for KCs, and through this combination, we gain a lot of fidelity in terms of how KCs can behave and how they'll react to certain kinds of player actions.

====

But, at this stage, we just have the Narrative Legos sans what Ken called the macro bar, IIRC.

We still need something like that, but it was also desirable to be able to integrate more conventional "Adventures" that we see in TTRPGs, and all of that needs to be squared with my specific vision for a sandbox game; agency can only be real if players can fail, and can miss out.

This was the root impetus for how this evolved into a Living World system, and it involves a few solutions working in tandem.

=====

So firstly, the core enabler is my use of Timekeeping through AngryGMs Tension Pool. But also my idea for Quest Blocks. Basically generic stat blocks that detail how specific kinds of quests will progress in stages that I call "Acts".

For example, a basic Assassinate Quest might come in 3 Acts: Track Target, Kill Target, Flee. This would be available to the Keeper as 3 Blocks, which detail the generic requiremenrs to fulfill that act, but would also detail how to handle deviations, and what kinds of quests can be easily integrated. Say Kill Target fails, and the Players Flee, and now the Target is hold up in a fort. This can lead into an Infiltrate Quest.

As a tool, these are going to be highly useful given the sandbox nature of the game. Rather than worry about stopping the game so you can prep, pull up the Blocks and improvise.

But as a mechanic, these become potent for elaborating into what I call Quest Lines; detailed, bespoke adventures that can integrate seamlessly with with the sandbox and the living world.

The idea behind them is, all Quest Lines are written from the assumption that the Players are never involved; including not even witnessing any of the events. So once the Quest Line begins, through whatever trigger, the assumption is that if the players never become involved, then the events of each Act, as they trigger as time progresses, will backfill into the "canon".

They become stories that, if the players go poking around, can learn about what happened.

But through the Quest Blocks, if the players interject at any time, the Keeper will have the tools they need to adapt the Quest Line no matter how that interjection manifests; up to and including completely derailing it.

But what these do in conjunction with the Narrative Legos mechanics, is allow for a gameworld that can solve its own problems. KCs with the right Motivations or Passions can not only generate quests on the fly, but may also be eligible to take up Quests, and as such, Quest Lines will have guidance saying how any KC, or even specific ones, will be involved and what their canon becomes if left undisturbed.

With a combination of a lot of initial seeding, a well developed gameworld, and just time to keep playing, the living world just starts working, and changes over time.

Its often jokingly asked "Who needs players anyway?"...you don't need players to watch this system go to work.

====

Now all of that is great, but practicality is the issue. How do we make this workable in tabletop, especially for a role that is already heavy as it usually is?

Firstly, a lot of that comes from the games overall philosophy. For one, Keepers don't need to know or internalize the whole game. They don't even need to know how player characters work. They just need to know their role, and thats it. So that collapses a lot of the overhead already, as does the numerous tools and procedures that will be there to guide gameplay.

But secondly, is something I'm pretty proud of: just keep a Calendar.

====

So lets assume a Keeper is beginning a brand new game, utilizing a pre-made World Builder Book (my version of a setting and adventure book combo). You could just make your own, but thats gonna be some work and will be a different process.

To prep the World, they'd have to Seed the World and fill out the Calendar.

My thinking here, they'll either have their choice of what initial Quest Lines will begin, or they can roll for it, and there will be a number of things they'll be seeding regardless (to foster and reflect already developed relationships between Cultures and KCs).

To do this, for Quest Lines, they'd simply look to the Quest, and see what its Time Die and Time denomination is. Eg, roll 1d8 Weeks. Per the result they'd go to the Calendar and, forward from the starting date, fill in that Quest as triggering its first Act, and then put in the same sort of thing for the next Act, to be rolled at that time.

For other things, like generic Quests that may be running or even just short Quest Lines, they might not have a second Act at all, and might instead just trigger a new Quest, as can the bigger Quest Lines themselves at their end.

Others still will also include a note to check for a KC of a specific KC/Region. What this would mean is that when the Act triggers, the Keeper should also choose or roll for, and then note down that a specific KC is doing the Quest, if any are available that can.

And there will also be cases where there could be multiple outcomes; all of that would be notated on the Calendar, and its just up to the Keeper to update it as time moves along. (And they'd have the flexibility to shift time around as needed so things don't pile up on a single day)

And thats basically it as far as managing the world. Updating KCs themselves, including any dispositions they might have as a result of either Player or other KC Actions, won't be handled until those KCs are interacted with, or the Calendar says to do it as part of an Act resolving. (Eg KC X was the one that slayed Elvarg the Dragon, so once that Act triggers, things would need to be updated for their Culture, which is easy enough)

The final thing Keepers will want to do as part of this, to ensure that the fact that all these things are happening are visible, is follow through on the "World Effects" Quests impose when they finish.

For example, some part of the world might be at war when the game starts, and may be a Month later the Quest Line for that war has progressed to where a City ended up getting destroyed. Refugees could start flooding into other parts of the world, and Keepers will have the mechanics (through an expansion of the Tension Pool mechanics) to introduce these elements to the Players. And of course, they'll have the option to seek rumors just to get an idea of whats going on.

===

So, taking all that together, it just works. A lot of it is still rough (and I'm guaranteed forgetting a lot that would go into it), and it does need a lot of work to set up (unless you're nuts like me and don't mind improvising literally everything just to test the mechanics).

But! Thats not necessarily a bad thing, as the game is intended to be heavily integrated with its default setting, so a lot of that would be set up for you. For those that would still want to do their own, though, that's an excellent reason to design a book intended for such people.

I'm inevitably going to have a lot of experience by the time I've finished setting up my own world. Translating that experience into a bespoke book so you can set it up step by step is a great opportunity.

And ultimately, its a lot of fun. Part of the goal here is to give the GM of the game more gameplay to engage with that isn't dependent on the Players, and this does a lot for that in tandem with other systems in the game. And, IMO, it should work well to nix the tendency to want to railroad players.

With enough things going on, you and the game will always be telling a story. Even if the players decide to piss off and play pretend Fantasy Bakers.

I(Which this system is actually fantastic for supporting along side the more typical epic fantasy. So much so my game now could be described as a blend of epic fantasy and slice of life)

Suppose you're making a Hero Shooter, Fighting Game, MOBA, or something along those lines. You find yourself needing a character of a type that is required for the game either for balance reasons or to give fans of that particular archetype a reason to play your game. The problem is that you absolutely hate playing this particular archetype for whatever reason; the fantasy doesn't appeal to you, the playstyle isn't one that you like, whatever reason you want to give.

Assuming you understand the fundamental concepts of why people play that archetype, the balancing purpose it serves, and so on, do you:

1. Create a character you know you'll never be interested in playing so that people have what they know they'll like, at the expense of you not caring if that character is ever good/meta.
2. Create a character that fans of that archetype might not enjoy, but you do and it might draw more people to play that character
3. Not include that archetype and solve balancing issues that arise from it being gone elsewhere?

Assume that due to roster size, you can only have one of that type of character.

Just kind of a thought experiment I've been mulling over for the last couple of days. I'm making a fighting game and am not a huge fan of Installs (temporary buffs that change how the character plays). Installs/Install Characters aren't exactly required for a fighting game so it's not as important an issue to solve as say having a Grappler or not.

Just curious as to how you guys think

Music design in MMOs feels so neglected. Not the quality of the music, but how it is used. It's designed to be drowned-out by essential gameplay sound effects (stealth, spell, etc), only really adds the player experience when almost AFK.

Has anyone played an UNSCRIPTED sandbox-style MMO where the background music was manipulated in real-time to increase immersion? Kind of like the recent Zelda games.

For example...

Normally quiet slow and soft.

Louder and more epic as a large obvious monster gets closer and the camera view pans to view.

Quieter as the player approaches a somewhat hidden monster to build suspense and let the player hear, locate and position the scene.

Echo added when in a cave or castle so the music sounds like it is coming from far away. Less echo and louder as you approach your destination.

Music not only becomes more 'metal' during fights, but the change is a function of difficulty level. Easy mobs have no effect. Impossible mobs turns it to 11.

Faster tempo as the player health decreases.

Tempo as a function of speed on a vehicle. 'softer' sound to feel 'lighter' as a function of elevation.

Unsettling sounds like an irregular tempo/volume or adding whispers/screams when a 'scary' mob (zombie) is near.

Did some testing with my own prototype games and the effect is amazing. Surprised it's not used more often.

I'm crap with sound, but when I copied the audio techniques in movies scenes, it drastically improved gameplay.

Hey y'all. I'm making a top-down shooter. For various reasons, it would be really helpful if my enemies show how much remaining health they have, in the most diegetic way possible. Does anyone have examples of such situations in other existing games? I really need some inspiration!

EDIT: I forgot to mention: they need to be situations where the remaining hp are integral and not discrete. The player should be able to understand as specifically as possible how many hp remain!

And I don't have an animator! So I'm mostly stuck with the basics my engine provides.

For example: right now the enemy starts in black and white, and its sprite gets slowly filled by color (from bottom to up). When it gets full, it dies. This way, you always know how much health remains. This approach doesn't work, and I'm looking for other references like this one!

Thank you all!

Hello! I would appreciate anyone's feedback on my game design portfolio at

https://madisonolivia.myportfolio.com/

I'm still adding projects as I complete them, but last time I posted my portfolio I had a lot more unfinished work / projects that were just Unreal Engine practice projects. I just reformatted and redid the content included. I am trying to secure game design/development jobs as well as software development (casting a wide net).

Tips on how to break into the industry are also much appreciated. Thanks!

Context: Bloodborne has a parry system where you shoot your gun at a specific moment at the enemy's attack to parry it and stun the enemy, following with a visceral attack that deals more damage.

I work on a 2D action platformer, and after giving it a lot of thought, implemented a system similar to that - you have to shoot a projectile at an enemy to parry the attack and stun the enemy, while attacking the enemy outright requires you to get close to deliver malee attacks. I enjoy this system as it encourages dynamic movement from medium to short range, as well as maintaining and offensive moveset without transitioning to a more defensive (and slower) state.

My game main character basically hits everything with a baseball bat, and it make sense to hit a baseball aimed at an enemy to break the attack. However, in doing so, it was important for me to change the system to better suit my game, as well as differentiate it from the Bloodborne mechanic it was inspired from.

Changes:

• Since my game is in 2D, I decided that the player would have to manually aim the attack instead of it automatically hit the "focus on" target. It adds challenge while not being overtly tasking to the player.
• Since player has to aim to parry, time slows down while aiming, helping player focus on the task
• There is a visible knockback (stilll ironing up the parameters) as you "shoot" your projectile. This can be used for movement as well as helping to increase "game feel".
• The aiming mechanic as well as the projectile being a baseball and not a bullet led to the fact that there is a larger time period between the "shot" till it reaches the enemy.
• In Bloodborne, you were limited by the ammo you had so you couldn't just parry willy nilly. I found an ammo +/ mana system doesn't work for me and what this game is (parrying is part of the core mechanic of the game) but I still needed to limit parrying somehow. The solution? There can only be one parry projectile present at all time. Seeing how parrying isn't instantanious, it seems like a good risk/reward system for me.

Here where I start to brainstorm how to elaborate on this mechanic - add gamefeel, accessibility isssues, etc.

Game feel:

• Make the camera "recoil" at the shot
• Time freeze when enemy is successfuly stunned
  • I consider to impliment a small freeze on enemy hit, and a larger window on slowing down when stunned. I still need to playtest those options to decide what would work better, though.
• Hit effects and sound
• More noticeble knockback for player?
• An indicator when the projectile can be shot again (kinda like the indicator you can dash again in Hollow Knight)

Accessibility:

• Adding option to prolonge enemy's stunned state time
• adding an option to freeze time (not slowing it) when aiming
• I try to make parry window fairly large - 0.45 sec and up - and I wonder how I can make them even larger, considering that opening and closing parry is dependent on enemy animation.
• Option to permenantly increase parry projectile hitbox size and speed (to ease aim)
• Option to auto aim (this I can only really impliment later)

Upgrade, elaboration, etc:

• Upgrade projectile range
• Upgrade projectile speed
• Upgrade projectile 'size'
• Costumization: make projectile bounce, or hit multiple enemies
• autoaim upgrade (need to think how to make it work with autoaim accessibility option)
• Increase the nummber of parry projectiles present at any given time
• Cross it with "teleport to projectile" mechanic I implemented, making the projectile work also as "teleaportation arrows" (if you know Aterna Noctis - something like teleportation arrow there)

I want to make this mechanic central to the game loop (which also will require me to estimate stun state damage vs regular damage values and stuff like that) and be useful in extra missions (I am planning to play Children of the Sun for some inspiration) but I also wanted to hear your opinions, and disscuss this mechanic with you as well as hear your ideas/notes.

Either way - I hope you found my write up entertaining at least. I love this Subreddit and I'm glad I have something to post here.

Half of the posts are "can I do this in my game" or "I have an idea for a game" or "how do I make players use different abilities". Now there's a time and place for questions like this but when half of the posts are essentially asking "can I do this" and "how do I do this". Its like I don't know, go try it out. You don't need anyone's permission. To be fair these are likely just newbies giving game dev a shot. And sometimes these do end up spawning interesting discussion.

All this to say there is a lack of high level concepts being discussed in this sub. Like I've had better conversations in YouTube comment sections. Even video game essayists like "Game Maker's Toolkit" who has until recently NEVER MADE A GAME IN HIS LIFE has more interesting things to say. I still get my fix from the likes of Craig Perko and Timothy Cain but its rather dissapointing. And there's various discorda and peers that I interact with.

And I think this is partly a reddit problem. The format doesn't really facilitate long-form studies or discussion. Once a post drops off the discussion is over. Not to mention half the time posts get drug down by people who just want to argue.

Has anyone else had this experience? Am I crazy? Where do you go to learn and engage in discourse?

For an RPG I've been thinking about and planning, it would center around a group of enchanted supersoldiers. They're more akin to pre-written characters like in Final Fantasy 7 or Kingdom Come Deliverance, and have their own character traits and personalities.

With a narrative perspective, I've thought about having choices and options that reflect on the characters and their growth. For choices that fit in-character, they may gain xp or have more of a positive feeling in them, and for choices that are out-of-character, they may not gain anything or have more negative feelings. For other, more detailed ideas:

• Available options may show character's personalities. An upbeat character may have more dialogue lines pointing towards positive things and good things, while a chaotic neutral psychopath will have all options, and will not really feel a thing no matter the choice.

• Choices, moral actions, and internal reward system can be based on a simplistic idea of ID, EGO, and SUPEREGO based on character traits and personality.

• Exploring the sexuality of characters: Since the party members are pre-written and have their own agency, sexuality can be explored more. A bi/pansexual character may have the ability to have sex with multiple genders, a lesbian may have only women available, an asexual character is limited but more attracted to things like personalities and character stats. This can also be for other characters and love interests as well, and can also bee for character types they like or dislike.

• Romance options as well: For RPGs, the choices are generally for sex. However, as one character may start to have romantic feelings for another, sex options woth others may start to decrease, or not be as rewarding for perks or stats. On the other end, this could give the ability for scandals and affairs.

• Available options may change after a character has gone through some sort of growth, ptsd, enlightenment, etc.

What are your thoughts, and other ways to expand on this idea?

Hey y’all. I have a 3-D Zombie TD.

Feedback that is welcomed includes Fps Audio glitches Opinions on Turret

Things to overlook Zombie Animations Environment Lack of UI

Recommended for game devs since this is an early prototype The game is at Link for game You can reach me at https://discord.gg/KuBWKDwW Thank you so much!

In my roguelike game, the player can equip up to 2 spells during a run.

Spells use mana as a resource. Because both spells use the same resource, it's currently much better to invest into upgrading a single spell to make it as powerful as possible as opposed to upgrading both spells.

I think having 2 spells to play with is more fun, but for players who prefer to min-max their build, investing into a single spell is better.

What are good ways to address this issue?

I've seen some games forego mana completely and instead use a cooldown for each spell individually. This could work, however, I'm not a fan of it because it forces the player to constantly look at the UI to see if the spell is ready to be cast.

Hello, i have a problem that i can't find a solution for for several months now and i need some other points of view for troubleshooting.

The theme:
I created something unique that is related to One Piece (the manga) and i want to give it as a gift to 1 person who will find it. What i want to do is, similar to how the plot in One Piece is, hide 4 geocaches around my country that once you have all 4 and connect them with a cross, the place where they connect is gonna be where the treasure will be. I will announce the treasure hunt with my tiktok account and for the first geocache, the people who want to play will have to answer correctly some questions about the One Piece universe, the correct answers will give the first cache's coordinates. The coordinates the caches will be have nothing to do with the information that they will contain about the actual coordinates that you have to use to figure out the final spot.

The problem:
This will make it just a "whoever is the quickest wins" instead of giving a fair play among the people. Also, the final place i want to place the treasure is...very far away from any central place so i leave out literally anyone who doesnt have a personal vehicle so, kids wont be able to win and it kinda sucks.

Solutions i have thought that im not satisfied with:
1)Post a new video for each of the 4 geocaches every weekend (but this doesnt solve anything, and it actually turns the whole event into a time gated one which sucks even more)
2)Place the geocaches into super populated areas so they are reachable by anyone (this still doesnt eliminate the "first come first serve" problem)
3)Have a key that unlocks 1 of 4 locks from the final treasure box in each geocache so 4 people can get the reward (the problem is that 4 people need to come together at the end to get the treasure and this creates problems of its own)
4)Make the questions impossibly hard for the geocaches (internet exists, it just will take one search for the right answer)
5)Place ALL the geocaches in hard to reach spots (still doesnt eliminate the problem AND just excludes anyone without a vehicle again)

So, yea, i really need a solution to this problem and soon cause im planning to launch the event in July.

Disclaimer: I'm not arguing any point, advocating for the glorious revolution of the proletariat, starting a cult, or insulting anyone's mother. I'm just presenting this as a thought experiment. You can take it or leave it as you will.

Obviously, computer RPGs take their inspiration from the tabletop RPGs that came before them. You level up your character in exactly the same way. You start out weak, then through experience, gain new and more powerful abilities and equipment. In a tabletop campaign that lasts for years of play time and entire lifetimes for the characters in the game, that makes sense. A game that lasts years needs to evolve to stay interesting, and levelling provides opportunities for live GMs to change things up in any number of ways.

Computer games, on the other hand, are quite different. You can't evolve a CRPG, because it's always destined to be constrained by its programming. CRPGs are good for maybe 50 to 100 hours of gameplay, which may only be a few months or years in-world for the characters. It strains credulity for a character to evolve from a novice to a demigod in such a short time frame. And worse, for the game to remain challenging, the enemies have to level along with the characters. This creates the feeling that they're running furiously just to stay still, rather than making any actual progress. It is also very tempting to break a game by grinding levels to get in front of the difficulty curve. Grinding is boring in itself, and renders the rest of the game boring by destroying the challenge of it.

Computer games also differ from tabletop games in the degree of physical skill involved in play. We want a computer game to become more challenging as it progresses, to keep up with the player's increasing mastery of the controls. But traditional RPG leveling does the opposite. The characters start out weak. They become more powerful as they level up, and so, the game becomes easier rather than more challenging.

It would make more sense to me to turn that on its head. A CRPG character should start with the best stuff in the game. That would make the first few chapters of the game easier while the player is learning the controls and feeling their way into the story. This could be tied into some sort of resource management system. The best equipment requires the most expensive and rarest resources, that will be the first to become exhausted as the conflict continues. Less effective equipment, on the other hand, would use more abundant resources. For example, your fancy magic sword of smiting requires constant recharging with increasingly rare magic, but a regular steel battle axe can be kept sharp with a simple grindstone. So, characters would be obliged to adopt less effective equipment and to diversify their skill set as the game continues.

The same orc you one-shot with your magic sword at the beginning of the game becomes a formidable opponent at the end, when you have to fight him with a rusty bread knife. We can ramp up the level of challenge in the appropriate manner without having to engage in the typical, super-grindy RPG arms race. You might argue that giving the players cool new stuff is how you keep them engaged in a game. But I would argue that cool stuff works better at the beginning of the game anyway, when you are trying to engage your audience and entice them to play. After you've hooked them, it's the momentum of the story that will carry them through to the end, not the shiny new toys.

I would also argue that a game of managing depleting resources is much more true to life and compelling than a magical, boot-strapping, arms race. It ratchets up the dramatic tension in a natural and plausible way. It doesn't involve credulity-stretching doomsday devices, or world-breaking powers. It allows the players the satisfaction of feeling they were able to reach within themselves and find clever and innovative ways to win the war. Killing that orc with the rusty breadknife was tough, but it sure does make for a good story to tell the grandkids. And there are plenty of parallels in real life.

Can I reference other games or use images from them in my design document as long as I don't copy them in the final product. Like say I want to describe a UI and I use an image of another game in the design doc but it's different in the final product, is that allowed or can the image being the design doc be evidence for copyright.

I read that a game designer doesn't have to know code or be able to draw well to be a game designer, but what is the difference between an ideas guy and a game designer if they don't do those things. At what point does an idea for a game become a game design. People say that an ideas guy is useless because everyone has ideas, but what makes a game designers idea worth more. Is it because they're more specific with their idea instead of saying "what if".

Note: I read the article the automod gives, but doesn't really answer my question so dont tell me to read it.

I want to create a turn based system but what are components that make it strategic progressive and interesting. How do I make the game simple yet strategic.

If you had to design a game using only these pieces (you don't have to use all of them):

• Standard 52 deck of cards
• 8x8 checkerboard
• 48 checker pieces (24 x 2 colors) with distinct sides (crown on one side)
• Two d6 dice
• OPTIONALLY: 100 chips (20 x 5 colors)

What kind of game would you design? Full games welcome but I'd also be curious to hear partial ideas of mechanics you would use, since a lot of modern play features (custom characters/tiles) aren't possible with traditional pieces.

I’ve been trying to design an FPS RPG just for fun and I’ve come down to the theme of “Superheroes”. I want players to have the freedom of something like Fallout where they can create new and interesting builds so they don’t have specify with a certain class like how it works in BG3 or DnD, but I still want the powers to be uniform. I want the powers and upgrades to make sense given their super power. For example, someone who has fire based abilities shouldn’t have the ability to freeze their enemies. I feel like I’m getting close to what I want but I’m all out of ideas. Any help or examples would help.

Hi! I'm a game designer working on my own board game for about 3 months now and I have been using the map of Clue to prototype, but in order to make my game more functional I would like to have my own map. Any recommendations for tools I can use to make maps?

Thank you!

I recently decided to try solo developing a simple puzzle game. My approach from the beginning was to create a level editor, and then repeat the following: make levels based on current mechanics, think of how to add more complex mechanics, and integrate the new mechanics into the editor.

I feel I've reached a point where I'm mostly happy with the game mechanics and now want to work on level design. But I have questions about how to begin.

I'm not sure how I should reveal the game rules/mechanics. A "How To Play" section that reveals everything? A gradual mechanic/rule reveal that demonstrates the controls/mechanic, and then gives a level using that mechanic? Introduce a new mechanic in a very basic level with no explanation, and hope the player figures out what to do? A mix of these? Anything else I haven't thought of?

I'm certain discussions about this have been had thousands of times, especially because of The Witness's focus on rule discovery. So I'm open to being pointed toward a resource that may answer my question.

I'm also unsure of how to present the levels, which is related to revealing rules. The ones I've seen in games I've enjoyed playing:

Tametsi (written instructions of mechanics as you encounter them),

Polimines 2 (written instructions of mechanics as you encounter them),

hexceed (intuitive/helpful design explains mechanics without words),

LYNE (intuitive design with no practically no explanation),

Bombe (introduces mechanics with barebones explanation).

All of them have a form of "start with a few levels available. Complete some to unlock some more", slightly increasing the difficulty and/or introducing new mechanics in that manner. These games, for the most part, feel very intuitive (minus Bombe), and STILL have included instructions. I don't know if what I have is nearly as intuitive, so I'm thinking written instructions might be required. I guess, I'm trying to decide if I should bother incorporating "rule discovery" versus just explaining the rules.

A video demonstrating the game rules/mechanics of my untitled puzzle game. Feel free to mute it, skim it, or completely ignore it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A8208yBdyhY

The fact that it took me a 14 minute video to explain the game mechanics surely means I've answered my own question though... >_<

Hello,

For action game development, especially ones involving melee combat, telegraphing attacks is vital.

However, when I play these games, I often run into the exact opposite problem. I find that the attacks are too telegraphed, to the point that the telegraphing is worthless.

What often happens is I see the windup of an attack, and perform a dodge, or a guard or whatever... Except I'm too early, because the telegraphing of the attack is three seconds or something, often leading me to exit the dodge or guard stance just in time to get smacked.

However, I have friends who at the same time think that the attacks are not telegraphed enough.

When designing my own game, how can I keep both camps happy?

Good day everyone!

As the title says, I’m thinking about designing a stalker enemy for a horror game.

To give an overview of the game: think about something heavily inspired by Amnesia: the Bunker, so with a safe space which the player needs to leave in order to find useful key items to progress.

I wanted to try and give the enemy a twist changing its behavior accordingly to its senses.

I was thinking about give the enemy the ability to sense smells, and with that being able to follow the last actions of the player (but with some sort of time limit of chasing)

What do you think about this? How would you expect this kind of enemy to behave?

I’m open to discussions and I’m ready for some heavy criticisms (:

Hey all,

I am currently working on a product to help game designers ideate and then validate their design choices using real-time market data.

For this I need to understand what are the types of design decisions that are difficult to make? What sort of market data would make it easier for a game designer to “convince” others for faster (and more accurate) decision making? Or to get investment from a VC/publisher.

I am sitting on a mountain of data, 100,000+ games, 20,000+ taxonomy data-points, data that stretches from the 1980s until now - and I want to build a product that is truly useful for the game design process.

I have 12 years of experience as a game analyst, but since I have no design experience personally I need to understand how I can use this data to really help the entire game design process.

I am in the making of a RPG and I'm reconsidering a lot of things like character leveling.

Let me explain. I have a small world and I want to make a maximum use of it. I don't want areas to feel non relevant because you are to high level.

I really like the building character tho. So I don't really know where to stand.

Have you any tips or ideas?

So my game looks like this:

https://i.imgur.com/yQr43E2.png (description box highlighted in yellow shifted slightly upwards)

https://i.imgur.com/3gOQP6j.png (description box shifted slightly downward)

You can cast an arsenal of different spells depending on which two runes you line up, and in order to make it easier to know what you're casting, I also made the spell descriptions automatically appear at the side. Unfortunately this description collides with the space of other important UI elements.

Making the text smaller causes some players to have trouble reading the font on smaller device screens.

There's not quite enough space in the corners of the game to properly display the spell description either.

Widening the game to create more space will effectively end up shrinking all the other UI elements for mobile players.

Are there any game examples you know that manage to successfully display detailed information on small vertical screens?